New uranium leak found at Areva factory

Nuclear Plant Climate Risks span flood risk, heat stress, and water scarcity, threatening operations, safety systems, and steam generation; resilience depends on mitigation investments, cooling-water management, and adaptive maintenance strategies.

Key Points

Climate-driven threats to nuclear plants: floods, heat, and water stress requiring resilience and mitigation.

✅ Flooding threats to safety and cooling systems

✅ Heat stress reduces thermal efficiency and output

✅ Water scarcity risks limit cooling capacity

Climate change can affect every aspect of nuclear plant operations like fuel handling, power and steam generation and the need for resilient power systems planning, maintenance, safety systems and waste processing, the credit rating agency said.

However, the ultimate credit impact will depend upon the ability of plant operators to invest in carbon-free electricity and other mitigating measures to manage these risks, it added.
Close proximity to large water bodies increase the risk of damage to plant equipment that helps ensure safe operation, the agency said in a note.

Moody’s noted that about 37 gigawatts (GW) of U.S. nuclear capacity is expected to have elevated exposure to flood risk and 48 GW elevated exposure to combined rising heat, extreme heat costs and water stress caused by climate change.

Parts of the Midwest and southern Florida face the highest levels of heat stress, while the Rocky Mountain region and California face the greatest reduction in the availability of future water supply, illustrating the need for adapting power generation to drought strategies, it said.

Nuclear plants seeking to extend their operations by 20, or even 40 years, beyond their existing 40-year licenses in support of sustaining U.S. nuclear power and decarbonization face this climate hazard and may require capital investment adjustments, Moody’s said, as companies such as Duke Energy climate report respond to investor pressure for climate transparency.

“Some of these investments will help prepare for the increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events, highlighting that the US electric grid is not designed for climate impacts today.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.

Key Points

An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.

✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation

✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment

✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more

For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.

The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.

It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.

The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.

The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.

“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.

The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.

A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.

Peak time spikes
The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.

For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.

It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.

“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.

That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.

“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.

The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.

“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”

In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.

In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.

That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.

The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.

While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.

It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Vancouver Natural Gas Ban Reversal spotlights energy policy, electrification tradeoffs, heat pumps, emissions, grid reliability, and affordability, reshaping building codes and decarbonization pathways while inviting stakeholders to weigh practical constraints and climate goals.

Key Points

Vancouver ending its ban on natural gas in new homes to balance climate goals with reliability, costs, and technology.

✅ Balances emissions goals with reliability and affordability

✅ Impacts builders, homeowners, and energy infrastructure

✅ Spurs debate on electrification, heat pumps, and grid capacity

In a significant policy shift, Vancouver has decided to lift its ban on natural gas appliances in new homes, a move that marks a pivotal moment in the city's energy policy and environmental strategy. This decision, announced recently and following the city's Clean Energy Champion recognition for Bloedel upgrades, has sparked a broader conversation about the future of energy systems and the balance between environmental goals and practical energy needs. Stewart Muir, CEO of Resource Works, argues that this reversal should catalyze a necessary dialogue on energy choices, highlighting both the benefits and challenges of such a policy change.

Vancouver's original ban on natural gas appliances was part of a broader initiative aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainability, including progress toward phasing out fossil fuels where feasible over time. The city had adopted stringent regulations to encourage the use of electric heat pumps and other low-carbon technologies in new residential buildings. This move was aligned with Vancouver’s ambitious climate goals, which include achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and significantly cutting down on fossil fuel use.

However, the recent decision to reverse the ban reflects a growing recognition of the complexities involved in transitioning to entirely new energy systems. The city's administration acknowledged that while electric alternatives offer environmental benefits, they also come with challenges that can affect homeowners, builders, and the broader energy infrastructure, including options for bridging the electricity gap with Alberta to enhance regional reliability.

Stewart Muir argues that Vancouver’s policy shift is not just about natural gas appliances but represents a larger conversation about energy system choices and their implications. He suggests that the reversal of the ban provides an opportunity to address key issues related to energy reliability, affordability, and the practicalities of integrating new technologies, including electrified LNG options for industry within the province into existing systems.

One of the primary reasons behind the reversal is the recognition of the practical limitations and costs associated with transitioning to electric-only systems. For many homeowners and builders, natural gas appliances have long been a reliable and cost-effective option. The initial ban on these appliances led to concerns about increased construction costs and potential disruptions for homeowners who were accustomed to natural gas heating and cooking.

In addition to cost considerations, there are concerns about the reliability and efficiency of electric alternatives. Natural gas has been praised for its stable energy supply and efficient performance, especially in colder climates where electric heating systems might struggle to maintain consistent temperatures or fully utilize Site C's electricity under peak demand. By reversing the ban, Vancouver acknowledges that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for every situation, particularly when considering diverse housing needs and energy demands.

Muir emphasizes that the reversal of the ban should prompt a broader discussion about how to balance environmental goals with practical energy needs. He argues that rather than enforcing a blanket ban on specific technologies, it is crucial to explore a range of solutions that can effectively address climate objectives while accommodating the diverse requirements of different communities and households.

The debate also touches on the role of technological innovation in achieving sustainability goals. As energy technologies continue to evolve, renewable electricity is coming on strong and new solutions and advancements could potentially offer more efficient and environmentally friendly alternatives. The conversation should include exploring these innovations and considering how they can be integrated into existing energy systems to support long-term sustainability.

Moreover, Muir advocates for a more inclusive approach to energy policy that involves engaging various stakeholders, including residents, businesses, and energy experts. A collaborative approach can help identify practical solutions that address both environmental concerns and the realities of everyday energy use.

In the broader context, Vancouver’s decision reflects a growing trend in cities and regions grappling with energy transitions. Many urban centers are evaluating their energy policies and considering adjustments based on new information and emerging technologies. The key is to find a balance that supports climate goals such as 2050 greenhouse gas targets while ensuring that energy systems remain reliable, affordable, and adaptable to changing needs.

As Vancouver moves forward with its revised policy, it will be important to monitor the outcomes and assess the impacts on both the environment and the community. The reversal of the natural gas ban could serve as a case study for other cities facing similar challenges and could provide valuable insights into how to navigate the complexities of energy transitions.

In conclusion, Vancouver’s decision to reverse its ban on natural gas appliances in new homes is a significant development that opens the door for a critical dialogue about energy system choices. Stewart Muir’s call for a broader conversation emphasizes the need to balance environmental ambitions with practical considerations, such as cost, reliability, and technological advancements. As cities continue to navigate their energy futures, finding a pragmatic and inclusive approach will be essential in achieving both sustainability and functionality in energy systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Bruce Power Life-Extension Programme advances Ontario nuclear capacity through CANDU Major Component Replacement, reliable operation milestones, supply chain retooling for COVID-19 recovery, PPE production, ventilator projects, and medical isotope supply security.

Key Points

A program to refurbish CANDU reactors, extend asset life, and mobilize Ontario nuclear supply chain and isotopes.

✅ Extends CANDU units via Major Component Replacement

✅ Supports COVID-19 recovery with PPE and ventilator projects

✅ Boosts Ontario energy reliability and medical isotopes

Canada’s Bruce Power said on 1 May that unit 1 at the Bruce nuclear power plant had set a record of 624 consecutive days of reliable operation – the longest since it was returned to service in 2012.

It exceeded Bruce 8’s run of 623 consecutive days between May 2016 and February 2018. Bruce 1, a Candu reactor, was put into service in 1977. It was shut down and mothballed by the former Ontario Hydro in 1997, and was refurbished and returned to service in 2012 by Bruce Power.

Bruce units 3 and 4 were restarted in 2003 and 2004. They are part of Bruce Power’s Life-Extension Programme, and future planning such as Bruce C project exploration continues across the fleet, with units 3 and 4 to undergo Major Component Replacement (MCR) Projects from 2023-28, adding about 30 years of life to the reactors.

The refurbishment of Bruce 6 has begun and will be followed by MCR Unit 3 which is scheduled to begin in 2023. Nuclear power accounts for more than 60% of Ontario’s supply, with Bruce Power providing more than 30%   of the province’s electricity.

Set up of Covid recovery council
On 30 April, Bruce Power announced the establishment of the Bruce Power Retooling and Economic Recovery Council to leverage the province’s nuclear supply chain to support Ontario’s fight against Covid-19 and to help aid economic recovery.

Bruce Power’s life extension programme is Canada’s second largest infrastructure project and largest private sector infrastructure programme. It is creating 22,000 direct and indirect jobs, delivering economic benefits that are expected to contribute $4 billion to Ontario’s GDP and $8-$11 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP), Bruce Power said.

“With 90% of the investment in manufactured goods and services coming from 480 companies in Ontario and other provinces, including recent manufacturing contracts with key suppliers, we can harness these capabilities in the fight against Covid-19, and help drive our economic recovery,” the company said.

“An innovative and dynamic nuclear supply chain is more important than ever in meeting this new challenge while successfully implementing our mission of providing clean, reliable, flexible, low-cost nuclear energy and a global supply of medical isotopes,” said Bruce Power president and CEO Mike Rencheck. “We are mobilising a great team with our extended supply chain, which spans the province, to assist in the fight against Covid-19 and to help drive our economic recovery in the future.”

Greg Rickford, the Minister of Energy, Mines, Northern Development, and Minister of Indigenous Affairs, said the launch of the council is consistent with Ontario’s focus to fight Covid-19 as a top priority and a look ahead to economic recovery, and initiatives like Pickering life extensions supporting long-term system reliability.

The creation of the Council was announced during a live event on Bruce Power's Facebook page, in which Rencheck was joined by Associate Minister of Energy Bill Walker and Rocco Rossi, the president and CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

Walker reiterated the Government of Ontario’s commitment to nuclear power over the long term and to the life extension programme, including the Pickering B refurbishment as part of this strategy.

The Council, which will be formed for the duration of the pandemic and will include of all of Bruce Power’s Ontario-based suppliers, will focus on the continued retooling of the supply chain to meet front-line Covid-19 needs to contribute to the province’s economy recovery in the short, medium and long term.

New uses for nuclear medical applications will be explored, including isotopes for the sterilisation of medical equipment and long-term supply security.

The supply chain will be leveraged to support the health care sector through the rapid production of medical Personal Protection Equipment for front line-workers and large-scale PPE donations to communities as well as participation in pilot projects to make ventilators within the Bruce Power supply chain or help identify technology to better utilise existing ventilators;

“Buy Local” tools and approaches will be emphasised to ensure small businesses are utilised fully in communities where nuclear suppliers are located.

The production of hand sanitiser and other cleaning products will be facilitated for distribution to communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Decarbonization Strategy weighs life-cycle emissions and climate targets, highlighting mode shift to public transit, cycling, and walking, grid decarbonization, renewable energy, and charging infrastructure to cut greenhouse gases while reducing private car dependence.

Key Points

A plan to cut transport emissions by pairing EV adoption with mode shift, clean power, and less private car use.

✅ Prioritize mode shift: transit, cycling, and walking.

✅ Electrify remaining vehicles with clean, renewable power.

✅ Expand charging, improve batteries, and manage critical minerals.

California recently announced that it plans to ban the sales of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, a move similar to a 2035 electric vehicle mandate seen elsewhere, Ontario has invested $500 million in the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and Tesla is quickly becoming the world's highest-valued car company.

It almost seems like owning an electric vehicle is a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, but it isn't, as a U of T study explains today. What we should also be focused on is whether anyone should use a private vehicle at all.
 
As a researcher in sustainable mobility, I know this answer is unsatisfying. But this is where my latest research has led.

Battery EVs, such as the Tesla Model 3 - the best selling EV in Canada in 2020 - have no tailpipe emissions. But they do have higher production and manufacturing emissions than conventional vehicles, and often run on electricity that comes from fossil fuels.

Almost 18 per cent of the electricity generated in Canada came from fossil fuels in 2019, and even as Canada's EV goals grow more ambitious today, the grid mix varies from zero in Quebec to 90 per cent in Alberta.
 
Researchers like me compare the greenhouse gas emissions of an alternative vehicle, such as an EV, with those of a conventional vehicle over a vehicle lifetime, an exercise known as a life-cycle assessment. For example, a Tesla Model 3 compared with a Toyota Corolla can provide up to 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases emitted per kilometre travelled in Quebec, but no reductions in Alberta.

Hundreds of millions of new cars

To avoid extreme and irreversible impacts on ecosystems, communities and the overall global economy, we must keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C - and ideally 1.5 C - above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.

We can translate these climate change targets into actionable plans. First, we estimate greenhouse gas emissions budgets using energy and climate models for each sector of the economy and for each country. Then we simulate future emissions, taking alternative technologies into account, as well as future potential economic and societal developments.

I looked at the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet, which adds up to about 260 million vehicles, while noting the potential for Canada-U.S. collaboration in this transition, to answer a simple question: Could the greenhouse gas emissions from the sector be brought in line with climate targets by replacing gasoline-powered vehicles with EVs?

The results were shocking. Assuming no changes to travel behaviours and a decarbonization of 80 per cent of electricity, meeting a 2 C target could require up to 300 million EVs, or 90 per cent of the projected U.S. fleet, by 2050. That would require all new purchased vehicles to be electric from 2035 onwards.

To put that into perspective, there are currently 880,000 EVs in the U.S., or 0.3 per cent of the fleet. Even the most optimistic projections, despite hype about an electric-car revolution gaining steam, from the International Energy Agency suggest that the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent electrified by 2050.

Massive and rapid electrification

Still, 90 per cent is theoretically possible, isn't it? Probably, but is it desirable?

In order to hit that target, we'd need to very rapidly overcome all the challenges associated with EV adoption, such as range anxiety, the higher purchase cost and availability of charging infrastructure.
 
A rapid pace of electrification would severely challenge the electricity infrastructure and the supply chain of many critical materials for the batteries, such as lithium, manganese and cobalt. It would require vast capacity of renewable energy sources and transmission lines, widespread charging infrastructure, a co-ordination between two historically distinct sectors (electricity and transportation systems) and rapid innovations in electric battery technologies. I am not saying it's impossible, but I believe it's unlikely.

Read more: There aren't enough batteries to electrify all cars - focus on trucks and buses instead

So what? Shall we give up, accept our collective fate and stop our efforts at electrification?

On the contrary, I think we should re-examine our priorities and dare to ask an even more critical question: Do we need that many vehicles on the road?

Buses, trains and bikes

Simply put, there are three ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger transport: avoid the need to travel, shift the transportation modes or improve the technologies. EVs only tackle one side of the problem, the technological one.

And while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, including leading electric bus fleets in North America, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.

If we truly want to solve our climate problems, we need to deploy EVs along with other measures, such as public transit and active mobility. This fact is critical, especially given the recent decreases in public transit ridership in the U.S., mostly due to increasing vehicle ownership, low gasoline prices and the advent of ride-hailing (Uber, Lyft)

Governments need to massively invest in public transit, cycling and walking infrastructure to make them larger, safer and more reliable, rather than expanding EV subsidies alone. And we need to reassess our transportation needs and priorities.

The road to decarbonization is long and winding. But if we are willing to get out of our cars and take a shortcut through the forest, we might get there a lot faster.

Author: Alexandre Milovanoff - Postdoctoral Researcher, Environmental Engineering, University of Toronto 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Germany energy liquidity crisis is straining municipal utilities as gas and power prices surge, margin calls rise, and Russian supply cuts bite, forcing state support, interventions, and emergency financing to stabilize households and businesses.

Key Points

A cash squeeze on German municipal utilities as soaring gas and power prices trigger margin calls and funding gaps.

✅ Margin calls and spot-market purchases strain cash flow

✅ State liquidity lines and EU collateral support proposed

✅ Gazprom cuts, Uniper distress heighten default risks

Germany’s fears that soaring power prices and gas prices could trigger a deeper crisis is starting to get real. 

Several hundred local utilities are coming under strain and need support, according to the head of Germany’s largest energy lobby group. The companies, generally owned by municipalities, supply households and small businesses directly and are a key part of the country’s power and gas network.

“The next step from the government and federal states must be to secure liquidity for these municipal companies,” Kerstin Andreae, chairwoman of the German Association of Energy and Water Industries, told Bloomberg in Berlin. “Prices are rising, and they have no more money to pay the suppliers. This is a big problem.”

Germany’s energy crunch intensified over the weekend after Russia’s Gazprom PJSC halted its key gas pipeline indefinitely, a stark wake-up call for policymakers to reduce fossil fuel dependence. European energy prices have surged again amid concerns over shortages this winter and fears of a worst-case energy scenario across the bloc. 

Many utilities are running into financial issues as they’re forced to cover missing Russian deliveries with expensive supplies on the spot market. German energy giant Uniper SE, which supplies local utilities, warned it will likely burn through a 7 billion-euro ($7 billion) government safety net and will need more help already this month.

Some German local utilities have already sought help, according to a government official, who asked not to be identified in line with briefing rules.  

With Europe’s largest economy already bracing for recession, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s administration is battling on several fronts, testing the government’s financial capacity. The ruling coalition agreed Sunday on a relief plan worth about 65 billion euros -- part of an emerging energy shield package to contain the fallout of surging costs for households and businesses. 

Starting in October, local utilities will have to pay a levy for the gas acquired, which will further increase their financial burden, Andreae said.

Margin Calls
European gas prices are more than four times higher than usual for this time of year, underscoring why rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears for policymakers, as Russia cuts supplies in retaliation for sanctions related to its invasion of Ukraine. When prices peak, energy companies have to pay margin calls, extra collateral required to back their trades.

Read more: Energy Trade Risks Collapsing Over Margin Calls of $1.5 Trillion

The problem has hit local utilities in other countries as well. In Austria, the government approved a 2 billion-euro loan for Vienna’s municipal utility last month. 

The European Union is also planning help, floating gas price cap strategies among other tools. The bloc’s emergency measures will include support for electricity producers struggling to find enough cash to guarantee trades, according to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

The situation has worsened in Germany as some of the country’s big gas importers are reluctant to sell more supplies to some of municipal companies amid fears they could default on payments, Andreae said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News